Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2644 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

this. I am not aware of a groundswell of concern within the community about the problem that we are seeking to address here. I think a reduction from 15 days to six days in relation to the requirement to table and the reduction from 15 days to 12 days is a good, measured approach at this point. I do not think there is any great groundswell of community concern or institutional concern about uncertainty here. This is a measured approach which, I think, does achieve the certainty that the Attorney and all of us seek. I commend the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

At 5.00 pm the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.01): I ask for leave to move amendments Nos 2 to 4 together.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: I move:

I think the matter has been well canvassed.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (5.02): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, to make clear what is happening, we proposed a reduction from 15 days to six days. Mr Stanhope is proposing a reduction from 15 days to 12 days. I have argued that we should reject his amendments in favour of what the Government has proposed by way of a reduction from 15 days to six days. Quite frankly, I think that is the only provision in the legislation which makes any substantive difference. A reduction from 15 days to 12 makes little difference at all. I think it is worth ensuring that we have a substantive result from this.

Mr Stanhope says he does not know of many cases where there have been problems with this. I have to say that there are a large number of matters which are raised from time to time with the Government where people are concerned about not being able to proceed with projects that hang off disallowable instruments, particularly under the Land Act, and such instruments need to lie on the table for, at the moment, the full 15 days before a project can get under way. That is a serious problem in some cases. Some people express serious concern about having a project which might be ready to go and about which there is no opposition on the floor of the Assembly - often these

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .